Credit: iStockphoto
I love our planet. I love its trees, its mountains, its oceans, its big beautiful skies and its extraordinary diversity of life. What we have on this world is precious — it's worth cherishing and nurturing.
But that doesn't mean I think that travelling beyond this planet is a waste of time or resources; or that I think we should instead focus on getting our world right before venturing into space. That's just plain silly: did we fix Europe before embarking for the Far East and the Americas? Did we perfect an idyllic nomadic society before leaving the African plains? Waiting to get our 'house in order' will achieve nothing but guarantee the demise and eventual destruction of our planet, our ecosystem and our species. Going into space is one of the best things we can do to save our world, and ourselves.
It's in our nature to venture out: since the dawn of our species, we have explored, adapted and expanded. In doing so, we have become the most powerful creatures on Earth, capable of splitting the atom and affecting the climate. Like a teenager experiencing the first flushes of hormones, we have felt powerful and invincible — then slowly grown aware that our behaviour and newfound strength can harm others.
It's because of our extraordinary success, our ability to harness resources and bend them to our will, that we are encroaching on our neighbours. We live in a closed system — the planet Earth — but often behave recklessly as if its resources are limitless. In the past, we've overcome these constraints by expanding into new territories.
The solution is not to abandon modern industrial civilisation: we're not going to give up our cities or technologies. In fact, without the large-scale mechanisation of industry, transport and agriculture, we would be unable to feed our massive and growing population. Going 'back to nature' may sound romantic, but would consign billions to starvation.
The first thing to do is reduce our impact on the planet: make technologies more efficient and our cities, transport systems and industrial processes less damaging to ecosystems. We rely on the web of life to sustain us: we need bees to pollinate, trees to make oxygen and worms to aerate the soil, or we would swiftly perish.
And after that? Do we mandate population controls? Do we nominate an arbitrary age at which people need to 'retire', as in the dystopian fictional vision of Logan's Run? Because populations will continue to grow, especially as child mortality falls and science finds ways of extending human lives. The logical thing to do is to expand beyond Earth: to build colonies on Mars, floating habitats in Earth's Lagrange orbits, mines on the Moon and the asteroids, and expand deeper into our Solar System.
It may sound unappealing to some. But so was the prospect — just a few centuries ago — of a long and arduous journey across treacherous oceans in cramped conditions, only to arrive in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness where conditions were difficult and starvation was a real possibility. And yet, tens of thousands of people set off for Australia and North America, among many other places, in search of a new life. Thousands perished. And yet, more came.
We need to expand into space because Earth alone cannot sustain us. Space provides a pressure valve, but exploring it will also ensure our survival. Because one day, a massive calamity will befall our world — an asteroid strike, ice ages, supervolcanoes, solar bursts or nuclear war — and we may disappear, or our civilisation fall.
Some ask: so what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature. Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. As the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan once said, "we are a way for the universe to know itself".
But we also deserve to continue because we have created things greater than ourselves. Not only scientific and engineering knowledge, valuable as this is — we have also created new and beautiful ways to see the world through art, music, literature and performance.
Think of the plays of Shakespeare, the concertos of Bach, the philosophy of Confucius, the epic poetry of Virgil, the suiboku ink painting of Shubun, the fado laments of Amália Rodrigues, the morality tales of Javanese wayang kulit shadow puppetry, the Islamic calligraphy of the Diwani Al Jali style, the novels of Cervantes, the harvest bhangra dances of Pakistan, the rhythms of the didgeridoo, and anything by Leonardo da Vinci.
Even if the cosmos is brimming with other advanced civilisations, we still deserve to be here. Nature in its diversity has made us as we are: we too are children of the universe, and have something to contribute.
Wilson da Silva is the Editor-in-Chief of Cosmos, and the past president of the World Federation of Science Journalists.
Reason to Believe
Hello Al,
> Currently nobody here has any reason to believe anything you say.
I do not ask that they believe. Whether you believe or not, self-sustaining colonies in space, on the moon and on Mars are impossible and shall remain so forever.
> ... we do not (and cannot) KNOW that humanity will destroy itself.
I agree. We cannot know with any degree of certainty the fate of humankind. In this case it is best to wait and see how the future resolves itself.
> Oh really? So what is missing? And explain how it is proven impossible to find a source of said life-essential property elsewhere in the solar system/beyond and bring it to the colony.
Mars lacks an ozone layer. It is difficult to imagine that the colonizers will be able to find an ozone layer and deliver it to Mars.
Mars' climate would also appear very inhospitable to a self-sustaining colony on the planet. Mars is more harsh than Antarctica and it appears extremely unlikely that the colonists will have enough time to terraform Mars before the inherent dangers of the place exterminate the colonist.
> Nuclear reactors are definitely an option. They can be built lighter and with more automation than you are assuming. Also, solar is an option, perhaps you didn't notice that the mars rovers operate on solar energy. Mars receives 43.1% of the intensity of light that the earth receives. This just means that you need 56.9% larger solar panels to provide the same energy. More work, yes, but not impossible by any means.
Considering the difficulty that NASA has had in building the space station ... how will NASA build all of this equipment, deliver it to Mars, land it precisely in a safe terrain, and then send astronauts to assemble everything together in the hope that it will work under Martian conditions?
Construction work on another planet is extremely dangerous. Exactly how much time will the first astronauts have to spend on construction, and how will they do so in a safe manner? A trivial injury on the Earth would likely become a mortal injury on Mars (unless you also plan to send a hospital fully staffed with all the equipment necessary to perform surgery on Mars).
This is a project which seems too difficult for humankind. Also it is too expensive. How many trillions would you spend on such a reckless, potentially failing endeavor?
> Holy crap, were you planning to have the colonists dig out the colony by hand? And just how large of a metropolis are you planning here? Not to mention we would build a little at a time and move-in immediately as soon as each chamber was complete. There would not be thousands of astronauts living on the surface without protection.
Astronauts will have to carve out their colony by hand. Otherwise you will have to send construction equipment to Mars. How would you power the equipment? Such tools (on the Earth) are powered by fossil fuels and oxygen harvested directly from the atmosphere. On Mars there are no fossil fuels nor any oxygen.
As to the prospects of building the underground colony "little by little" ... how many missions to Mars are you planning? The moon is a lot closer and humans only visited that place a half-dozen times. Visiting the moon is like crossing the street compared to voyaging to Mars.
> I'm sorry, did I ever give a time-line? Or specify what group of people would build the colony? You are jumping to conclusions. A mars colony would not be self supporting immediately. It would likely take many many years with many shipments from earth. Yes, it would be expensive, but it would not be impossible to ship millions of tons of equipment to mars.
Shipping millions of tons of equipment to Mars is prohibitively expensive and also impossible. To begin with, most Mars missions to date have failed. Secondarily, delivering all of this equipment to Mars is pointless if it is scattered about on Mars' surface. Finally, the biggest wildcard ... you also need to get astronauts to Mars live, healthy and with enough high-energy food to sustain the sort of construction work necessary to assemble and build everything into a cohesive, life-sustaining colony.
> So you DO trust engineers with your life, so long as the likelihood of death is significantly low. Contradicting your earlier statements again I see.
Humans survived on the Earth for over a hundred thousand years without technology so the failure of technology is not a direct threat to my own survival. Humans visiting Mars must have blind faith in the technology's ability to function successfully, without interruption, in extremely harsh conditions for at least eighteen months.
Don't you see any difference between these two situations?
> Technology is not causing our resources to be exhausted, in fact it is allowing our resources to be stretched further than would otherwise be possible. We can grow much more food on an acre of land than was possible 100 years ago, for example. If we run our of available resources, it will be because of over-population, not technology. Also, before you bring up fossil fuels again... there is technology on the horizon that would allow us to produce carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, whatever... I predict that we will be running on cheap synthetic fuels long before we run out of fossil fuels.
The above paragraph contains so many errors that it would take several pages to refute them. But there is no need for this argument. Over the next several decades you will see for yourself the fate of technology and the failure of humankind to find alternatives to the fossil fuels.
Time will resolve this argument.
David Mathews
David Mathews' Home Page
I'll just use your own
I'll just use your own method of debate this time...
> Whether you believe or not, self-sustaining colonies in space, on the moon and on Mars are impossible and shall remain so forever.
No, I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. Even if you think you are correct, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what facts you try to give me, you will always be wrong.
Certainly Wrong Things
Hello Al,
> No, I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. Even if you think you are correct, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what facts you try to give me, you will always be wrong.
If you read my post carefully you will notice that I said a little more than this.
But it is obvious that you cannot say much more than that.
I suppose this means that the argument is over. When humans build a colony of Mars, I will concede that I am wrong. Should humankind fail to ever build a colony on Mars, you will have no choice except to concede that my viewpoint is correct.
Sincerely,
David Mathews
David Mathews' Home Page
> But it is obvious that you
> But it is obvious that you cannot say much more than that.
Not even close to true, I simply had better things to do. Would you like me to pick apart your last post? I certainly can.
> Should humankind fail to ever build a colony on Mars, you will have no choice except to concede that my viewpoint is correct.
No, you're wrong again. What I am arguing is that there are no insurmountable challenges to building a self-sufficient colony. Not building one does not prove it impossible, only that we chose not to. You have a much bigger burden of proof, as you must pick apart every single possibility and show that it is not just difficult to accomplish, but that there are physical laws preventing it from ever happening. Good luck with that, especially since you seem to have a lot of research to do before you even understand the topic.
Mars' Colonization Plan
Hello Al,
> Not even close to true, I simply had better things to do. Would you like me to pick apart your last post? I certainly can.
No, I do not want you to pick apart my post. Instead, I would love to hear your Mars' Colonization Plan. Specifically:
1. What equipment & resources do you plan to send to Mars?
2. How many preparatory missions will you use to send these materials to Mars and verify that they landed successfully without loss or damage?
3. Once it become times to send astronauts to Mars, How many astronauts will you send per mission?
4. An eighteen-month mission in space will demand a huge amount of food, water and oxygen to sustain the astronauts. Exactly how big a space ship will this demand?
5. Will all of the astronauts land on the Martian surface or will you follow the Apollo model and leave astronaut(s) in orbit?
6. How much time will the astronauts spend doing construction activity on Mars vs. how much time can they devote to scientific activities?
7. What sort of medical emergencies will the astronauts be able to perform on Mars, and what are an injured astronauts prospects of recovery on Mars?
8. Should an astronaut die during the mission (either en route or on the Martian surface) what shall happen to the corpse? (You cannot bury a human corpse on Mars as that would contaminate the surface).
9. How much will this cost? Who is going to pay?
This will provide some sort of insight into your optimism regarding the colonization of Mars.
> What I am arguing is that there are no insurmountable challenges to building a self-sufficient colony.
I believe that you are mistaken in asserting that there are no insurmountable challenges to building a self-sufficient colony on Mars. Humans have inhabited Antarctica for decades yet I don't imagine that any of the scientific colonies on that continent are self-sufficient. Govenments spend millions of dollars every year to supply these scientific outposts with the basic necessities of life.
Mars is several orders of magnitude harsher than Antarctica and its atmosphere is extremely thin and not well supplied with oxygen. There is water on Mars but it would take industrial-scale equipment to harvest and purify a sufficient quantity to support astronauts and any agricultural activities attempted on the Martian surface.
I believe that the above constitutes insurmountable challenges to any human colonization of Mars. But if you have something specifically in mind, I would love to hear your Martian colonization plan.
David Mathews
NASA's Mars Plan
Hello Al,
NASA has spent a little time thinking about Mars:
Crewed Mission to Mars
A description of the mission and the launches necessary:
Launching the Mission
Needless to say, such a lauch schedule appears impossible for a NASA which has had so much difficulty merely sending the Space Shuttle into orbit and returning it back safely.
David Mathews
> No, I do not want you to
> No, I do not want you to pick apart my post.
Obviously, because it would help to show how more of the problems that you think are impossible to solve can be solved.
> Instead, I would love to hear your Mars' Colonization Plan.
My plan for colonizing Mars (if I had one, which I don't and never claimed that I did), is completely irrelevant to the argument. I never claimed that building a self sustaining colony on Mars is practical. I claim only that there are no insurmountable challenges. In other words, it is physically possible for a self-sustaining colony of humans to be built outside of earth. My claim can only be refuted by showing that some core aspect of a self-sustaining colony away from earth is physically impossible. Show that and you will have beaten me, and probably also gain worldwide fame. Short of that, my claim will stand.
> Humans have inhabited Antarctica for decades yet I don't imagine that any of the scientific colonies on that continent are self-sufficient. Govenments spend millions of dollars every year to supply these scientific outposts with the basic necessities of life.
You are basing your argument on false assumptions... The Antarctic bases are not self-sufficient because they don't need to be. If there were a powerful reason to make them self-sufficient, then we would make them so.
> Mars is several orders of magnitude harsher than Antarctica and its atmosphere is extremely thin and not well supplied with oxygen. There is water on Mars but it would take industrial-scale equipment to harvest and purify a sufficient quantity to support astronauts and any agricultural activities attempted on the Martian surface.
What is your point here? Everything you mention here we can overcome with existing (or easily developed) technology if we chose to do so.
As far as I can tell based on everything you've said here and in previous posts, your argument boils down to this: "Building a self sustaining space colony is impossible. I David Matthews am really smart, and I can't even think of ways that we would handle some of the various challenges. Thus they must be impossible to overcome. Otherwise I would have to admit that I don't know enough about what I'm talking about.".
But go ahead, prove me wrong. I dare you to try. So far you have given no evidence to base your position on. Everything you have referenced has only showed that building a colony would be hard and that there are problems we haven't yet solved. No kidding! I agree! But absolutely NOTHING that you have said or referenced proves that it is impossible to do. So come on! You are so sure about this. You must have some incontrovertible evidence that proves your point. If so why don't you come out with it?? Not doing so concedes that you can't, and thus your argument is baseless.
-Al
Winning Without a Plan?
Hello Al,
Your argument dissolves into an absurdity of baseless assrtions and nothing else. Creationists can win arguments just as easily, at least in their own minds they think that they have won an argument.
> I never claimed that building a self sustaining colony on Mars is practical. I claim only that there are no insurmountable challenges. In other words, it is physically possible for a self-sustaining colony of humans to be built outside of earth.
If your argument takes the following form:
* [I]t is physically possible for a self-sustaining colony of humans to be built outside of earth.
That's a bold claim to make by someone who doesn't even have a plan.
> My claim can only be refuted by showing that some core aspect of a self-sustaining colony away from earth is physically impossible.
I have already mentioned the problems which would make such a colony physically impossible. You don't have a plan so how could you possibly assert that these problems have a practical solution which is reliable enough to function for 18 months of absolute isolation from Earth?
> The Antarctic bases are not self-sufficient because they don't need to be. If there were a powerful reason to make them self-sufficient, then we would make them so.
Wouldn't NASA have a compelling reason to make these basis self-sufficient specifically for the purpose of preparing for the Mars mission? Antarctica is the perfect place to test all of the technologies for the lengths of time needed to verify that they would function successfully for 18 months in the harshest conditions on the Earth.
Then NASA could move the experiment into space and test the technologies in an even more harsh and isolated environment. NASA is going to have to do these experiments anyway before sending humans to Mars.
> What is your point here? Everything you mention here we can overcome with existing (or easily developed) technology if we chose to do so.
You are mistaken. NASA hasn't yet developed any technologies suitable for the industrial processes required for a successful Mars mission (and later Mars colonization).
Remember: NASA stopped visiting other planets back in the 1970s. All these technologies that are required must be developed from scratch and they all will need comprehensive testing on Earth and Mars before any astronaut visits Mars.
> As far as I can tell based on everything you've said here and in previous posts, your argument boils down to this: "Building a self sustaining space colony is impossible. I David Matthews am really smart, and I can't even think of ways that we would handle some of the various challenges. Thus they must be impossible to overcome. Otherwise I would have to admit that I don't know enough about what I'm talking about.".
If that was my only argument it would still remain true. If you doubt the truthfulness of my argument all you have to do is wait. If there is a successful Mars mission which sends astronauts to Mars and returns them to Earth alive, I will concede that my arguments are flawed.
But if humans never set foot on Mars (nor even visit the moon ever again), I suppose that my arguments were correct.
Given NASA's many problems over the last several decades, I have little reason to fear the refutation of my argument. NASA is having a hard enough time getting to orbit and back safely. Those who find it difficult to cross the street won't reach the top of Mt. Everest.
> You must have some incontrovertible evidence that proves your point.
Yes, I have incontrovertible evidence. But, no, I cannot provide it for you. The evidence is beyond the scope of the present format and it would require a lot more time & energy than I am prepared to devote to an argument on a website.
All I will say is this: Humankind's primary challenge from here on will be surviving on the Earth, not visiting Mars nor conquering space.
David Mathews
David Mathews is full of if.
> Your argument dissolves into an absurdity of baseless assrtions and nothing else. Creationists can win arguments just as easily, at least in their own minds they think that they have won an argument.
Your arguments are an absurdity of baseless "assrtions". My argument is based on the lack of proof that it is false. Also... I can look at existing evidence, the Earth itself for example, that a human colony in space is possible. I mean the Earth is in space right?, and the last time I checked we are still alive. It doesn't suggest that we can build another Earth or terraform one any time soon, but it does prove that a human colony in space can exist. Already does! As for comparing my argument to creationists, you are wrong. The important difference being that creationism cannot be dis-proven through science, because it is not based on science. My argument can theoretically be shown to be false, (assuming you can prove that we cannot create/terraform/travel to an earth-like planet) thus it has much more merit from a scientific perspective.
> That's a bold claim to make by someone who doesn't even have a plan.
Perhaps, but I don't need to have a plan to make the claim that it is possible.
> I have already mentioned the problems which would make such a colony physically impossible. You don't have a plan so how could you possibly assert that these problems have a practical solution which is reliable enough to function for 18 months of absolute isolation from Earth?
No, you mentioned things that are problems, but said nothing of why those problems cannot possibly be overcome. Thus they do nothing to prove your position. "how could you possibly assert that these problems have a practical solution"... I can assert that because I have seen no fact that proves otherwise.
> Wouldn't NASA have a compelling reason to make these basis self-sufficient specifically for the purpose of preparing for the Mars mission? Antarctica is the perfect place to test all of the technologies for the lengths of time needed to verify that they would function successfully for 18 months in the harshest conditions on the Earth.
Then NASA could move the experiment into space and test the technologies in an even more harsh and isolated environment. NASA is going to have to do these experiments anyway before sending humans to Mars.
Maybe, you would have to ask the people at NASA. Regardless, a manned mission to mars had not been a primary goal for NASA until recently.
> "> What is your point here? Everything you mention here we can overcome with existing (or easily developed) technology if we chose to do so."
You are mistaken. NASA hasn't yet developed any technologies suitable for the industrial processes required for a successful Mars mission (and later Mars colonization).
Remember: NASA stopped visiting other planets back in the 1970s. All these technologies that are required must be developed from scratch and they all will need comprehensive testing on Earth and Mars before any astronaut visits Mars.
Ok, so how does that make it impossible?
> But if humans never set foot on Mars (nor even visit the moon ever again), I suppose that my arguments were correct.
I've covered this already, but apparently you have a bad memory. Man never building a self sufficient colony proves absolutely nothing about what is possible to accomplish given the physical laws of the universe. For example, we have never sent a manned submarine to the bottom of the deepest rift in the ocean, but only because we have not yet built a sub that is strong enough. Does that prove that it is impossible for man to ever visit the bottom of the trench? Of course not.
> Given NASA's many problems over the last several decades, I have little reason to fear the refutation of my argument. NASA is having a hard enough time getting to orbit and back safely. Those who find it difficult to cross the street won't reach the top of Mt. Everest.
I seem to have missed the part where I claimed it was NASA that would accomplish this. Again... even if NASA fails, that does not prove it impossible.
> Yes, I have incontrovertible evidence. But, no, I cannot provide it for you. The evidence is beyond the scope of the present format and it would require a lot more time & energy than I am prepared to devote to an argument on a website.
HA! What a bunch of baloney. If you really did have said proof, then it would suit you greatly to make it public. You would probably gain a lot of respect in the science community and would have a much better soap-box to preach from. I could tell all along that you've got nothing, it is written all over your posts. But hey, for the sake of argument let's pretend that you do really have proof. What exactly is preventing you from putting this evidence online somewhere in your preffered format and placing a link to it here?
> All I will say is this: Humankind's primary challenge from here on will be surviving on the Earth, not visiting Mars nor conquering space.
You are probably correct on this count, at least as long as earth remains the center of humanity, which may not always be the case.
Not Self-Sustaining on the Earth ...
Hello Al,
You've hit the nail on the head with your comment:
> Also... I can look at existing evidence, the Earth itself for example, that a human colony in space is possible. I mean the Earth is in space right?, and the last time I checked we are still alive. It doesn't suggest that we can build another Earth or terraform one any time soon, but it does prove that a human colony in space can exist. Already does!
Humankind is not living in a self-sustaining manner on the Earth, at any level from the most isolated of islands to the entire globe.
Perhaps you have noticed?
Since technological civilization is failing on the Earth it follows logically that it is also impossible to successfully build a self-sustaining colony in space, on the moon, on Mars or exploring the galaxy.
As you said at the end of your post:
> You are probably correct on this count, at least as long as earth remains the center of humanity, which may not always be the case.
But I will correct your statement thusly: I am absolutely correct about the bleak prospects of humankind's civilization on this Earth. Humans are burning through the Earth's resources at a tremendous and ever-accelerating pace. Humans are polluting and damaging the Earth at a horrendous pace.
You combine these two processes together and you will end us with future generations of humans inheriting a depleted planet with a dying civilization suffering the ill effects of a climate which has changed radically from present conditions and a sea level which is constantly rising and slowly destroying the entire world's coasts.
Under such circumstances, humans will find it a great challenge surviving on the Earth. Voyaging into space, even just into orbit, will become merely a memory which will eventually transform into mythology.
Which is to say:
Humankind desperately needs to build a self-sustaining civilization on the Earth, now.
Should humankind fail to establish such a civilization it is extremely likely that Homo sapiens will enter into a terminal decline phase which will ultimately end in the extinction of our species.
David Mathews